Global warming information is the latest to be attacked with urges for censorship. Facts are getting in the way of them convincing you to accept a carbon tax so you give up your money willingly.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
@Metal-Brain
Well, this article should be read.
The so-called "climate sceptics" have been so seriously censored both in science and news/social media, with the pretext that their claims have been debunked, that a serious logical question arises about whether the main "argument" against the "climate sceptics" is based on deleting and cesnoring their arguments.
There is also a big conceptual confusion, I believe that this is intentional: a failure to be sufficiently exact what one actually says. For example, there is a difference between saying that the climate is not warming, that the climate is not warming unprecedented, that the climate is not warming because of human activity, that this or that claim has not been proved, and so on. All these different views have been labelled as one: "climate denialism" or "climate scepticism". There is nothing scientific at all in using censorship, logical mistakes and conceptual confusion in the arguments.
@eintaluj saidExactly.
@Metal-Brain
Well, this article should be read.
The so-called "climate sceptics" have been so seriously censored both in science and news/social media, with the pretext that their claims have been debunked, that a serious logical question arises about whether the main "argument" against the "climate sceptics" is based on deleting and cesnoring their arguments.
The ...[text shortened]... g scientific at all in using censorship, logical mistakes and conceptual confusion in the arguments.
I accept global warming is happening. Climate change has always happened and always will. I just don't believe man is the main driver of global warming.
You don't know how many times posters on here have falsely claimed I am a climate change denier or a global warming denier. I have never ever denied climate change or global warming is happening. I deny man is the main cause of either. That is what I deny. I also deny sea level rise is alarming. 2 or 3 mm per year SL rise on average is nothing to be alarmed about.
Censoring misinformation really means censoring facts that contradict their disinformation and misinformation.
https://reclaimthenet.org/media-outlets-campaign-to-get-facebook-to-censor-climate-misinformation/
It seems like democrats are too yellow to debate this so they resort to censorship out of failure. They believe the truth is a lie and the lie is the truth. Suzi will post on this thread soon calling the facts lies. She always does.
@metal-brain said"You don't know how many times posters on here have falsely claimed I am a climate change denier or a global warming denier. I have never ever denied climate change or global warming is happening. I deny man is the main cause of either. "
Exactly.
I accept global warming is happening. Climate change has always happened and always will. I just don't believe man is the main driver of global warming.
You don't know how many times posters on here have falsely claimed I am a climate change denier or a global warming denier. I have never ever denied climate change or global warming is happening. I deny man ...[text shortened]... ny sea level rise is alarming. 2 or 3 mm per year SL rise on average is nothing to be alarmed about.
Yes, that's why you're a climate change denier.
Saying humanity is not the main cause is denying climate change. We aren't talking about natural cycles. Like we're barely making a dent and the planet will just do what it pleases anyway.
We're experiencing more frequent and more severe wildfires than we did 20 or 10 years ago. More "100 year storms". More droughts. More extreme temperatures. But it's just natural, right? The planet does this all the time, it can't be because of something we're doing. It can't be all the junk we dump in the atmosphere and rivers? It can't be the massive deforestation we're doing? It's insignificant, so we should just keep at it?
@zahlanzi said"We aren't talking about natural cycles"
"You don't know how many times posters on here have falsely claimed I am a climate change denier or a global warming denier. I have never ever denied climate change or global warming is happening. I deny man is the main cause of either. "
Yes, that's why you're a climate change denier.
Saying humanity is not the main cause is denying climate change. We aren't talking about ...[text shortened]... It can't be the massive deforestation we're doing? It's insignificant, so we should just keep at it?
Then specify instead of being deliberately vague.
I am not a climate change denier. To be a climate change denier I would have to deny the ice age happened. I have never done that.
"We're experiencing more frequent and more severe wildfires than we did 20 or 10 years ago. More "100 year storms". More droughts. More extreme temperatures. "
We're experiencing more frequent and more severe wildfires because man is causing them and mismanaging the forests. It is a mostly man made problem that has nothing to do with global warming.
Global warming results in more rainfall worldwide. See the Pliocene Epoch.
Global warming results in less droughts, not more. Maybe more floods, but your drought claim is complete anti science bunk.
You are science denying myth spreader.
@Metal-Brain
"I also deny sea level rise is alarming. 2 or 3 mm per year SL rise on average is nothing to be alarmed about."
I think, in turn, that the glaciers are melting and the sea level is rising. It might be highly dangerous because there are so many people on the planet and many of them are living at the sea, in such areas that will remain under the water. I predict enormous immigration crisis, local wars, wars for freshwater, and so on. I predict a disaster. I am sceptical about whether humankind is able to avoid this. Even if it would be physically possible, the structure of the population on Earth will be an obstacle. The governments are competing with each other, therefore, humankind is unable to really do something to help itself. This is true even if the cause of global warming is human activity.
@Metal-Brain
"We're experiencing more frequent and more severe wildfires because man is causing them and mismanaging the forests."
One of the probable reasons for wildfires is human activity: big cities are using so much freshwater that the water level in the lakes and rivers is very low now.
To suggest human activity had nothing to do with the climate changing is not only factually wrong (just read the reports) but abusively stupid as well.
250 years ago there was no industry and 1 billion people (or so) on the planet.
Now most nations are industrialised and there are more than 7 billion people.
Obviously that will have an impact on the environment.
And the only thing one can seriously say on this topic: obviously you don’t believe in the science. Obviously you doubt all major research. Obviously it’s a global conspiracy to shut you up.
Obviously.
@metal-brain saidThe article shared claims that the climate is not seriously warming now and that the main cause of climate change is not human activity.
Global warming information is the latest to be attacked with urges for censorship. Facts are getting in the way of them convincing you to accept a carbon tax so you give up your money willingly.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
In turn, I tend to believe the following:
1) It is an initially plausible working hypothesis (among the others) that the scientific-technical revolution is responsible not only for the destruction of nature and pollution but also for climate change. In any case, this hypothesis is worthy of investigating.
2) The climate is warming now, but I do not dare to say how catastrophic it is or how unprecedendent it is.
3) The climate scientists have failed to prove for the larger scientific community and for publicity in general, that climate is warming now on an unprecedented scale and the main cause of climate change is a human activity; even if some group of scientists have proof, they have failed to convincingly explain and argue it for others.
4) Censorship, propagandistic methods and other nasty tricks used only reduce my personal probability that the scientists have a proof.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
Global warming information is the latest to be attacked with urges for censorship. Facts are getting in the way of them convincing you to accept a carbon tax so you give up your money willingly.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
.........................A Nazi site.............Crazy stuff, wow.
@shavixmir said"Obviously that will have an impact on the environment."
To suggest human activity had nothing to do with the climate changing is not only factually wrong (just read the reports) but abusively stupid as well.
250 years ago there was no industry and 1 billion people (or so) on the planet.
Now most nations are industrialised and there are more than 7 billion people.
Obviously that will have an impact on the environment.
A ...[text shortened]... ously you doubt all major research. Obviously it’s a global conspiracy to shut you up.
Obviously.
- It follows that it is a plausible hypothesis that it has an impact on the climate as well. However, in no way it is a proof that this hypothesis is true.
"And the only thing one can seriously say on this topic: obviously you don’t believe in the science."
- The inquisitors said so to those who believed in the Copernican system and did not believe in the Ptolemaic system. The mainstream science was on the side of the inquisitors. Shavixmir is an example of science religion, science cult: a person who talks as if the representative of Science, while one's reasoning is basically deeply unscientific and illogical.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@eintaluj said...Right, and the Earth is flat.
"Obviously that will have an impact on the environment."
- It follows that it is a plausible hypothesis that it has an impact on the climate as well. However, in no way it is a proof that this hypothesis is true.
"And the only thing one can seriously say on this topic: obviously you don’t believe in the science."
- The inquisitors said so to those who believed in th ...[text shortened]... the representative of Science, while one's reasoning is basically deeply unscientific and illogical.
Ya' can't fix stupid~!
Thus, I have disputed the section "Myth 5" from Robert M Carter's article shared:
"Myth 5 Warming of more than 20C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5 A 20C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes."
I do not think that the scientific evidence and qualification Carter has amounts to evaluate whether humankind is in deep trouble in the case of considerable climate warming. Moreover, I doubt his argument from the evolution. Human civilization is qualitatively different. For example, we have nuclear stations, right at the coasts, that can remain under the water if the sea levels are arising - causing nuclear contamination. Moreover, even if humankind survives, it does not necessarily mean that the present high-technological civilization survives. Finally, hundreds of millions of people may die, indeed, a big war may appear because of the shortage of freshwater, mammals may die out after the nuclear war.
I do not think that Carter's survival-optimism is scientifically based.